Personal Topic

[Moronium]

There is no such thing as a "principle theory" as opposed to some other sort.

 

 

Ya don't say.  And here I thought one of your major interests was "the philosophy of science."

 

You might want to "brush up" a little.  You could try perusing this article, for example:

 

Principle theories, constructive theories, and explanation in modern physics

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251667269_Principle_theories_constructive_theories_and_explanation_in_modern_physics

 

Edit:  Sorry, that may not be the best article to refer you to.  It seems to kinda assume that you already know the difference.  It's just the first one that came up on google.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Ya don't say.  And here I thought one of your major interests was "the philosophy of science."

 

You might want to "brush up" a little.  You could try perusing this article, for example:

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251667269_Principle_theories_constructive_theories_and_explanation_in_modern_physics

Well maybe I am wrong but your link seems to be the only reference to the term on the internet. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy has no reference to it. Without further support I remain to be convinced that this distinction is generally recognised. 

[Moronium]

Well maybe I am wrong but your link seems to be the only reference to the term on the internet. 

 

 

Say what!?  I see dozens of entries, including one summarizing Einstein himself making the distinction.

 

Try this, it's an entire book by the philosopher of science, Harvey Brown, which deals with the distinction at some length and includes a subchapter devoted to it exclusively:

 

Further insight into the nature of Einstein’s thinking was revealed in 1919, in an article he wrote for the LondonTimes, entitled ‘What is the theory of relativity?’ Here Einstein characterized SR as an example of a ‘principle theory’, methodologically akin to thermodynamics, as opposed to a ‘constructive theory’, akin to the kinetic theory of gases.

 

 

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/brown-phys-rel.pdf

 

He then quotes Einstein at some length on the topic.  At one point he quotes Einstein as saying, in a letter to Sommerfield in 1908

 

So, first to the question of whether I consider the relativistic treatment of, e.g., the mechanics of electrons as definitive. No, certainly not. It seems to me too that a physical theory can be satisfactory only when it builds up its structures from elementary foundations.

 

 

As can be seen from the rest of Einstein's ruminations recounted there, this is exactly what SR did NOT do, i.e., "build up structures from elementary foundations," inasmuch as SR was a mere "principle" theory.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Try this, it's an entire book by the philosopher of science, Harvey Brown, which deals with the distinction at some length and includes a subchapter devoted to it exclusively:

 

 

The letter to Sommerfield continues as follows:

 

The theory of relativity is not more conclusively and absolutely satisfactory than, for example, classical thermodynamics was before Boltzmann had interpreted entropy as probability. If the Michelson–Morley experiment had not put us in the worst predicament, no one would have perceived the relativity theory as a (half ) salvation. Besides, I believe that we are still far from having satisfactory elementary foundations for electrical and mechanical processes. I have come to this pessimistic view mainly as a result of endless, vain efforts to interpret the second universal constant in Planck’s radiation law in an intuitive way.  I even seriously doubt that it will be possible to maintain the general validity of Maxwell’s equations for empty space

 

 

Brown comments:

 

This passage is particularly interesting, because in making the connection with thermodynamics it highlights the price that is paid in adopting the principle theory approach to relativistic kinematics, and Einstein’s unease with that price

 

 

 

"If the Michelson–Morley experiment had not put us in the worst predicament, no one would have perceived the relativity theory as a (half ) salvation."  Notice that he characterizes SR as a half salvation from a "predicament."  Elsewhere he said he finally formulated SR out of "sheer desperation" after struggling for 8 years to reconcile Galileo's relativity principle with Maxwell's equations and other modern developments (the M-M experiment, for example).

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well obviously a derivation from an underlying principle has deeper explanatory power than a mere observation. 

 

 

More than one philosopher of science and physicist have noted the irony involved when some people assume that the less a theory explains, the MORE it explains, as you essentially claim here.

 

I guess it all depends on what one considers a "satisfactory explanation."  For a kid "because I said so and I'm your father" may be all it takes.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[exchemist]

Say what!?  I see dozens of entries, including one summarizing Einstein himself making the distinction.

 

Try this, it's an entire book by the philosopher of science, Harvey Brown, which deals with the distinction at some length and includes a subchapter devoted to it exclusively:

 

 

http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/brown-phys-rel.pdf

 

He then quotes Einstein at some length on the topic.  At one point he quotes Einstein as saying, in a letter to Sommerfield in 1908

 

 

As can be seen from the rest of Einstein's ruminations recounted there, this is exactly what SR did NOT do, i.e., "build up structures from elementary foundations," inasmuch as SR was a mere "principle" theory.

Thank you very much for the reference. It certainly seems to be a distinction Einstein drew, though I have never come across it anywhere else. Having read p71 I see what the difference is, I think. The example of bulk thermodynamics, before it was underpinned by statistical mechanics, seems instructive.   But I shall need to read a it more and think about what it signifies in relation to SR.

 

But it's nice to learn something new. 

[Moronium]

Thank you very much for the reference.

 

You're quite welcome.

[Moronium]

Now you've got my attention. Do you have a link to that paper? 

 

This may (or may not be) the paper I previously cited, Chem.  Either way, it seems to make the same claim.  I'm not in a position to "vouch" for it, but you can certainly read it and assess it for yourself.  Here's an excerpt from the conclusion:

 

Conclusion

 

No one appears to have ever asked the question “what is needed in the most general sense to derive Einstein’s formula E = mc2?"  Approaching this question ourselves, we started from the classical laws to rebuild the theory of special relativity (SRT).  This enables us to derive Einstein’s formula E = mc2 from the classical laws without any of the well-known approaches and to show that Einstein’s formula E = mc2 can be derived in many different ways, even without the usual methods of thought experiment, conservation laws, considering collisions or the postulates of special relativity.

 

What Einstein considered to be central to special relativity is in fact derivable from more classical considerations, rather than as a central consequence only of special relativity.  E = mc2 becomes secondary, not fundamental, and whilst no doubt useful in certain circumstances may not even be valid in all generality. 

 

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO4PDF/V14N4HAM.pdf

 

The physicists here appear to also use the L.T. in some formulations, but I would again caution that the L.T. are not "the postulates of SR."  The L.T. were first used by Lorentz in conjunction with a theory of motion that postulated absolute motion, and E=Mc2 can be derived in that theory as well.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Another issue which has come up tangentially is whether the formula is even valid.  If not, then maybe it is not something to "brag about" in the first place.

 

Problems with the mass-energy law arose in the restricted area of electrodynamics. It was not until the 1980s, decades after Einstein’s death, that Pappas of the University of Athens, Greece, demonstrated with a ballistic pendulum that, if momentum is conserved, E=mc2 predicts the consumption of far more energy than was actually expended in his experiment....Hence, Einstein’s law failed to comply with experiment and we have to conclude that it does not agree with momentum conservation.

 

Railguns, which are electrodynamically similar to impulse pendulums, furnish many more instances of the failure of Einstein’s energy law. The Newtonian Electrodynamics book shows a railgun example in which Ef/ Ec~24,000. Millions of induction motors are continuously in operation around the world. They all defy electromagnetic momentum conservation.

 

....E=mc2 is not a consequence of Einstein’s relativity theories. Einstein himself has shown that the energy law is inherent in pre-relativistic electromagnetism as formulated by Maxwell and his followers. 

 

There is no doubt that enormous amounts of energy are stored in the bonds between nuclear particles.  Manipulation of these bonds is the cause of nuclear explosions. No evidence has been quoted in this talk which indicates that mass in nuclear reactions cannot be converted to non-material energy. If nature allows this conversion, then some law like Einstein’s may correctly predict the conversion. There remains much to be discovered in the field of nuclear physics

 

https://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/GraneauIE61.pdf

Edited February 8, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Somebody should have told those sorry japs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that, eh?  With the right "religion" they would have been unscathed.

E=mc2 has nothing to do with atomic bombs.  Its an equation, not a instruction how to make bombs. How they work is the same as burning a match or setting off TNT.  IF e=mc2 really was the correct revelation of the relationship between mass and energy, i.e, its the exact same same thing... then we could simply prove that by converting 1 kg of duck feathers or doggy doo into a bomb, as 1 kg **** has the exact same mass as 1 kg of enriched plutonium.  BUT YOU CANT. SO therefore "e" does NOT = mc2, and energy is NOT mass and  mass is not just pure energy.

[Moronium]

Its an equation, not a instruction how to make bombs. How they work is the same as burning a match or setting off TNT.  

 

 

So fat man and little boy just contained TNT, that the idea?

[marcospolo]

I posted it here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-18  (posts 292-93)

 

The most relevant part is this:

 

 

 

The L.T were developed around 1899 as a direct response to the (lack of) findings of the M-M experiment--not Maxwell's equations.   Maxwell's equations presented some "puzzles" too, but it was Einstein who was fixated on those puzzles more than Lorentz.

 

 

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

 

What I find in this forum is that most posters here seem absolutely incapable of distinguishing between what a thing is, and what it is measured to be.

 

I blame this inability on the lingering effects of philosophical positivism, which is why I have taken time to address  Mach, Percy Bridgeman's book on the philosophy of science, etc., in previous posts. University professors today are still using the same tired arguments from the 1920's to "answer" questions about SR, i.e., so-called answers spawned by logical positivism, which has long since been completely discredited. 

 

Students are often told, for example:  "Time is what a clock measures, no more, no less.  There is no possible "meaning" of time apart from that."  Students begin to think that clocks define time, rather than merely measure it, however imperfectly.  They end up thinking that the ticking rate of a clock IS time.  Minkowski's naive interpretations of time and space played a big role in this too.  His woeful concoction called "spacetime" contributed greatly to this misconceived view about what "independent reality" is. 

 

Einstein too, with his attempt to elevate subjective sense perception to the level of physical reality.  E.g., if I claim that I'm not moving, then, by God, I aint moving.  That's the end of it.  Game over,  Beyond debate.  My subjective conclusions are 100% valid, 100% of the time.  Well, unless I should happen to conclude that I am moving, that is.  For SR such a conclusion is utterly blasphemous, and will quickly get you excommunicated from the church of SR.

 

It doesn't seem to help any, as my recent exchange with Popeye demonstrates, it you paid any attention to that.

Sorry, but I dont see here any examples of problems that have only ever been solved by LT exclusively.

 

Maxwell' equations are only valid in an assumed privileged frame of reference, a stationary one. That idea apparently is a no-no according to Relativity. So it was no accident that Lorentz and others were working on a fudge of math or logic to retain Maxwell's work. In a "scientific" approach, the equations would have been seen as a good try, but a failure, and people should have trotted off to look for a better hypothesis and develop better equations from there, but they did not apply the scientific method, they retained the failed equations and added fudges.

 

M&M believed in the Aether, as did obviously Maxwell and practically every other scientist of the day. M&M experiment was an attempt to prove that the Aether existed. When it failed to get the expected results, Lorentz and others offered excuses as to why they got a practically null result. Lorentz still believed that the Aether existed, but they could not measure it, as the ruler had shrunk! Lorentz was trying to support the Aether theory by excusing the null result of M&M.  Decades later Morley still was trying to find the Aether, as the still insisted that it MUST exist. Because he never found a decent experiment to find the Aether, does not mean it does not exist.

 

Einstein connected the dots, and used LT but did away for the Aether totally, as it was now superfluous, to the fudged equations.

 

The M&M experiment was never going to find anything, as the concept behind the experiment is flawed. May as well spin a torch around the room and declare that you have discovered some fundamental new principal of Physics. The experiment absolutely does not prove or even suggest that light goes the same speed in all inertial frames of reference. This is a big lie or stupid assumption by people who should know better.

 

In fact, the experiment could have only prove something, if there really is an Aether!  Because LT is designed to explain why there was a null result, when there should have been a positive result. (according to them)

 

If there is no Aether, then what is LT explaining? No Aether, then there is nothing to measure, so LT does not need to come up with a reason why a null result does he?  IF in fact LT is right, AND there is no Aether, then logically we do now have a real problem.  Namely if you assume that the arms of the contraption shrunk in one direction, and there is no Aether, then what SHOULD be the result now?  Why, they SHOULD have a very different reading from the two arms!  (as they shrunk in one axis not both.) BUT THEY DID NOT MEASURE ANY SUCH DIFFERENCE, PROVING that LT is a fudge, and is not real. And still not demonstrating one way or the other if an Aether actually exists.

 

So now that you can't fall on that old pile of crap the M&M experiment to justify LT, what is your second best example of what its good for? (now that we know LT is just a math fudge)

Edited February 8, 2019 by marcospolo

[ralfcis]

Guys, mass is not the same thing as matter, mass is the same thing as matter and/or energy. Mass, as near as I can figure it, means everything that isn't time or empty space or consciousness. I guess mass = stuff. Anything that's not stuff is not mass. I think Lise Meitner working under Otto Hahn was the first one to connect E=mc2 to the conversion of matter to energy or mass to mass. Just a fluke because gluon release shouldn't really count as a conversion as gluons aren't really matter but the carriers of the strong force. E=hf is the real formula for conversion which is digital, not analog like e=mc2. When they say the mass of an object increases as it goes closer to c, it's matter doesn't increase, all that increases is the amount of energy (stuff) it takes to get it close to c. The matter doesn't grow tumors or get bigger or denser (or flatter unless you believe in length contraction) it becomes more energetic (more momentum) as you pump more energy into it. Yes, this part of relativity is just one big smoke and mirrors misdirection fraud. Oh man, I'm starting to sound like you guys. I'm now officially a crank.

Edited February 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Sorry, but I dont see here any examples of problems that have only ever been solved by LT exclusively.

 

Maxwell' equations are only valid in an assumed privileged frame of reference, a stationary one. That idea apparently is a no no according to Relativity. So it was no accident that Lorentz and others were working on a fudge or math or logic to retain Maxwell's work. In a "scientific" approach, the equations would have been seen as a good try, but a failure, and people should have trotted off to look for a better hypothesis and develop better equations from there, but they did not apply the scientific method, they retained the failed equations and added fudges.

 

M&M believed in the aether, as did obviously Maxwell and practically every other scientist of the day. M&M experiment was an attempt to prove that the aether existed. When it failed to get the expected results, Lorentz and others offered excuses as to why they got a practically nul result. Lorentz still thought that the aether existed, but they could not measure it, as the ruler had shrunk!

 

Einstein connected the dots, and used LT but did away for the aether totally, as it was now superfluous, to the fudged equations.

 

The M&M experiment was never going to find anything, as the concept behind the experiment is flawed. May as well spin a torch around the room and declare that you have discovered some fundamental new principal of Physics. The experiment absolutely does not prove or even suggest that light goes the same speed in all inertial frames of reference. This is a big lie or stupid assumption by people who should know better.

In fact, the experiment can only prove something, if there really is an Aether!  Because LT is designed to explain why there was a null result, when there should have been a positive result. (according to them)

 

If there is no Aether, then what is LT explaining? No Aether, then there is nothing to measure, so LT does not need to come up with a reason why a null result does he?  IF in fact LT is right, AND there is no Aether, then logically we do now have a real problem.  Namely if you assume that the arms of the contraption shrunk in one direction, and there is no Aether, thenwhat SHOULD be the result now?  Why, they SHOULD have a very different reading from the two arms!  (as they shrunk in one axis not both.) BUT THEY DID NOT MEASURE ANY SUCH DIFFERENCE, PROVING that LT is a fudge, and is not real. And still not demonstrating one way or the other is an Aerther existed.

 

So now that you cant fall on that old pile of crap the M&M experiment to justify LT, what is your second best example of what its good for? (now that we know LT is just a math fudge)

 

M-M was designed to detect the motion of the earth, not the ether, per se.

 

Your strident certitude and belligerent advocacy, full of assertion without an iota of explanation, reminds me of some of  the SR advocates I've encountered here, truth be told.  Well, I guess there are fanatics on both sides.

[ralfcis]

Space is an electromagnetic medium that allows the propagation of electomagnetic waves just like water is a mechanical medium for water waves. Light does have a medium but not one we can register a relative velocity to. The vacuum of space can't be moved in a bottle and be differentiated from the vacuum of space outside that bottle. The matter in space is the only thing we can measure a relative velocity to, the vacuum is all the same.  Since we can't register a relative velocity to its medium, we also can't register a relative velocity to light. However, in the Fizeau experiment, we can have a velocity relative to the electromagnetic medium of water where light propagates at .75c. That electromagnetic medium can be put in a bottle and moved. If space was full of water, the MM experiment would have measured the earth's velocity relative to that and c would have registered as .75c give or take earth's relative motion. 

 

PS. Most people have a completely wrong idea of why light moves slower through water or don't believe it does. It's max speed is only a function of permittivity and permeability and water has different values for those constants than empty space has.

Edited February 8, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

M-M was designed to detect the motion of the earth, not the ether, per se.

 

Your strident certitude and belligerent advocacy, full of assertion without an iota of explanation, reminds me of some of  the SR advocates I've encountered here, truth be told.  Well, I guess there are fanatics on both sides.

Motion of the earth THROUGH the Aether.  You can't avoid it that easily.

 

So I'm possibly correct, but you are choosing to ignore it, because you don't like me personally.

 

As far as lack of explanation is concerned I've not attempted to explain the nitty gritty, as it seems perfectly obvious that what I say is sensible, logical and rational and therefore worthy of further investigations.

I did my own research after getting a few hints, I don't see why you cant do likewise.  Prove it or disprove it yourself, to your own satisfaction.

[Moronium]

 

 

Motion of the earth THROUGH the Aether.  You can't avoid it that easily.

 

The common assumption at the time was that an aether existed, but that was not required.  They could have assumed absolute space, a la Newton, and they still would have expected to detect motion "through space," based on the Galilean transformation if nothing else. 

 

What they were travelling "through" is irrelevant.  It could have been molasses.  It was presumed they were travelling though something, whatever it was, at the rate of one full revolution per year (about 70,000 mph).

 

The LT were developed in response to the failure to detect motion, not the failure to detect an aether, as I have pointed out twice (and which you have ignored twice).

Edited February 9, 2019 by Moronium